To argue for the position he advocates requires a working knowledge of
the philosophy of science and religion, epistemology and metaphysics.
While scientists of a previous generation, such as Michael Polanyi and
Thomas Kuhn, have shown the application required to master these
fields prior to publishing their philosophical work, Dawkins has so
far shown himself unable or unwilling to do so.
</quote>

Is that a bad thing? Does it require mastering these 'techniques'
before one can critique them? I am not convinced.

***

Ted wonders where Pim is coming from. I don't know about your field, Pim,
but in my field at least, editors expect me to have a solid working
knowledge of the ideas and approaches of anyone I am writing about in a
substantive way--of anyone, that is, whose name isn't simply brought into an
essay as part of rounding out, filling out, the story. In other words, Pim,
I'm expected to know what I'm talking about--I know that might be a hard
thing, Pim, but it's reality. Perhaps that's why Dawkins doesn't typically
publish in refereed journals of science & religion? Perhaps that's why he
writes books for general readers instead? Isn't this rather like those ID
folks you're so fond of?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Tue Oct 2 09:00:34 2007